This interpretation is rot, of course. We did beat the USSR and Moscow could have won the Cold War. All Russia had to do to cripple the West was march the short distance to the Rhine River from their East Germany bases.
Russia simply never needed to match or exceed our military power--just deploy more in the critical battlefield of West Germany.
And despite Russia's relatively weak economy, Russia has managed to convert their economic assets into great power over much of their history--including under the Soviets (as Stratfor notes):
Russia has been an economic wreck for most of its history, both under the czars and under the Soviets. The geography of Russia has a range of weaknesses, as we have explored. Russia’s geography, daunting infrastructural challenges and demographic structure all conspire against it. But the strategic power of Russia was never synchronized to its economic well-being. Certainly, following World War II the Russian economy was shattered and never quite came back together. Yet Russian global power was still enormous. A look at the crushing poverty — but undeniable power — of Russia during broad swaths of time from 1600 until Andropov arrived on the scene certainly gives credence to Putin’s view.
Putin already is clear about wanting to recover the former Soviet Union. I imagine that is just the beginning of his hopes to restore Russian power. As Putin would like, Russia can be a threat to the West again despite their current weakness, if only because Russia doesn't need to match us in power to be a threat. They are fully capable of mobilizing enough of their weakened state to pose a military threat. For a good while, anyway.
All the more reason to keep a significant U.S. Army in Europe, as far as I'm concerned.
